I really would love to use this as a chance to tear detente to shreds, but I already did that in tenth grade. The more creative (though less satisfying) option is to defend it, and since I set out to defend Nixon, now that I've been mugged into defending his foreign policy, I might as well.

Cathcon, you are just in high school. I assume that someone smart like you will go to college and graduate school and become a professor. As you travel that path you will find far more "Millers" than you will ever want to meet. I am glad that you have come a conclusion that you need to listen to the "Millers' to get a good grade. This is a lesson I arrived at late in my academic life and it has harmed me. You will discover that many hours will be wasted in your academic career rewriting things that have already been written in order to attain a good grade. Learn these lessons early, as you have, and you will find success in higher education.

Thanks. The last two papers have been good exercises in decidedly not sucking up to Miller, so I guess I should restrain myself this time around.

The more I dive into the subject of his foreign policy, the more it seems that he accomplished quite little. The attempted tri-angular diplomacy of the China visit never really pulled through, and in the end we gained what we would normally gain from recognizing just any nation: cultural and economic trade. And that's his greatest accomplishment? Detente apparently didn't do sh**t (I've already done the paper to back that up) since by the figures I've seen and remember show Soviet ICBM amounts continuing to rise despite limits and freezes on proliferation. And well, there's Vietnam. This is getting quite depressing.

Rough draft's due in less than 48 hours and I've got my Anatomy final tomorrow. Yikes. Crunch time, except I find myself on here instead.

If you'd like, I could infract ten random posts of yours for 10 points each and then uninfract them in a few days.

I don't think that'll be necessary.

In the meanwhile, I'm up to over seven pages--double spaced--and I'm still working on background and counter-argument. I've covered 1945-1952 so far and I should really accelerate my pace. After all, I've got sixteen years of history to cover before 1968. Then of course there's the argument itself.

Are you going to go into the antagonistic relationship between Eisenhower and Nixon at all or is that outside of the scope of your paper?

Outside. While my instincts in writing are more towards chronicling facts in a narrative-like structure, papers force me into the position of proving facts (I myself think that facts should speak for themselves when portrayed correctly). So the details of his Vice Presidency are far outside the scope of what I'm supposed to be focusing on. In fact, I should probably have less background. My paper is sixteen pages and I still need to buff up two of my body paragraphs. The only one I went in-depth on (I was up 'til 4 in the morning and thus too tired to cover everything, it's the rough draft) was China and that isn't even as in-depth as it should be.

In truth, and I may have said this before, my paper is proving something I myself don't believe, that being Nixon's foreign policy made America safer and stronger. However, I originally chose the topic in order to glorify one of our most hated modern-ish presidents, I find myself in this situation (I originally intended to talk about how he helped mold the modern Republican party). I believe you recall when I bitched about practically being forced into discussing his foreign policy instead.

Final draft due tomorrow. I guess we're nearing the end of the epic ride that's been "Cathcon's History Paper Thread". Four quarters, four papers. We started with the 1796 election, moved onto James Buchanan, did real well with William McKinley, and we finally arrived here with Richard Nixon.

So, what do you think of Nixon/McKinley/Buchanan/Jefferson/Adams as a result of doing these history papers?

Do you think you'll be a History Major?

-On the Major, I've been thinking History, Poli Sci, or Economics. I've yet to take the school economics class (next year!), so we'll see how that pans out.

-As for these guys, hmmm....By reading McCullough's book on Adams, I gained a special appreciation for our second President (though I didn't even make it to the Adams Presidency before I returned it), and am somewhat of an Adams hack I guess. Jefferson, the exploration of his psychology I found interesting though I didn't get to read much about the man himself. Buchanan was around the bastard the historians made him out to be (maybe a little less than all the hate, but still quite bad), but I'd like to think I made a paper well biased towards him. McKinley, I learned a lot and am convinced that he deserves a spot as one of our greats in terms of advancing the US on the world stage, along with TR. And for Nixon, a lot was mostly regurgitation of stuff I'd already read about. However, I was exposed to his auto-biography, and his thoughts and writings on stuff like meeting with the PR of China and the USSR are fascinating. Can't say my opinion of Trick Dick was really molded by this paper though.

I have just read the whole thread. Thank God I go to a private school that does not have the same curriculum. I, sadly, did not have a single history related class, but the history teacher (who has been there for 40 something years) is an incrediably smart man. The one and only time I ever spoke to him was at lunch, and we talked for about 25 straight minutes about Gamal Nasser, Anwar Sadat, and Mubarek.

This has been a great learning experiance for me, and it puts my papers (which are apparently considered pretty good) to shame a thousand times over.

This is a blast from the past. I never posted my 4th quarter paper. Not sure if I still have the document even. I was hesitant when I thought about posting it due to how much bullsh#tting I put into the background section of the paper.

Link to my old paper, being preserved here for posterity. Concerns American foreign policy during the Cold War. while the conclusion was typed in haste, I still believe the research is and information is of worth.